New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

Complex Lit Blog

Snapchat: Authentication v. Rule of Completeness: If Not Misleading or Relevant, No Need to Offer All Messages to Authenticate Some — Recipient’s Testimony Sender Was “Friend” Who Gave Her His Username + Content — Photos of Text Fair, Accurate

State v. Mrza, 302 Neb. 931 (2019): I. INTRODUCTION [*934] Sami S. Mrza appeals his jury conviction and sentencing for first degree sexual assau ...
State v. Mrza, 302 Neb. 931 (2019): I. INTRODUCTION [*934] Sami S. Mrza appeals his jury conviction and sentencing for first degree sexual assault. Although he assigns multiple errors, we focus on two issues: the authentication requirement for "Snapchat" …
Continue Reading

R. 11 & Inherent Power Sanctions: Relitigating Issues without Offering New Facts Unnec’y to Preserve Review, Is Sanctionable — But Not Raising Issue Undecided by S. Ct. or Courts in Cir., Or Identifying Adverse Case & Seeking Different Result

Carmax Auto Superstores v. Sibley, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 11504 (4th Cir. April 19, 2019) (unpublished): PER CURIAM: Montgomery B. Sibley appeals the dist ...
Carmax Auto Superstores v. Sibley, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 11504 (4th Cir. April 19, 2019) (unpublished): PER CURIAM: Montgomery B. Sibley appeals the district court's orders granting CarMax Auto Superstores, Inc.'s ("CarMax") petition to confirm an arbitration award, denying…
Continue Reading

Party Can Agree to Court’s Jurisdiction to Compel Arbitration without Waiving Personal Jd Defense Otherwise — Intent of Parties to Contract Controls Whether Non-Signatory (Subrogee) Can Compel — Court Decides If 3d Party Can Compel v. Arbitrability

Halliburton Energy Servs. v. Ironshore Specialty Ins. Co., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 11255 (5th Cir. April 17, 2019): An oil rig caught fire and exploded in Ohio. S ...
Halliburton Energy Servs. v. Ironshore Specialty Ins. Co., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 11255 (5th Cir. April 17, 2019): An oil rig caught fire and exploded in Ohio. Statoil USA Onshore Properties operated the rig, Halliburton Energy Services fracked at…
Continue Reading

Rule 11 Sanctions Appropriate for Frivolous Notice of Removal — No Safe Harbor If Sanctions Imposed Sua Sponte

Wong v. Kracksmith, Inc., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 8157 (9th Cir. Mar. 19, 2019) (unpublished): MEMORANDUM* Appellants Kracks ...
Wong v. Kracksmith, Inc., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 8157 (9th Cir. Mar. 19, 2019) (unpublished): MEMORANDUM* Appellants Kracksmith, Inc., and William Stocker, its attorney in this action, appeal from the district court's order remanding plaintiff's action to California…
Continue Reading

Daubert/Experts: Focus = Helpfulness & Threshold Low (Relevance) — Judge Not to Supplant Jury, Rejection of Testimony Is Exception, Not Rule (Good Quotes) — Manifest Error Standard in Reviewing Expert Evidence Rulings — R. 50(b)=Anti-Ambush

Puga v. RCX Sols., Inc., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 11229 (5th Cir. April 17, 2019): IT IS ORDERED that the pending joint motion for clarification of this court' ...
Puga v. RCX Sols., Inc., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 11229 (5th Cir. April 17, 2019): IT IS ORDERED that the pending joint motion for clarification of this court's opinion is GRANTED and our prior panel opinion, Puga v. RCX …
Continue Reading

R. 37(c) Sanctions: Damages Evidence Excluded, Resulting in Dismissal of Claim, for Failure to Disclose Pursuant to Rule 26(a) — 9th Cir. Factors When Exclusion = Dismissal — Weighing Choice of Law Factors under Restatement 2d §188

Ingenco Holdings, LLC v. ACE Am. Ins. Co., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 10946 (9th Cir. April 15, 2019): Appellants operate a gas purification plant in King Co ...
Ingenco Holdings, LLC v. ACE Am. Ins. Co., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 10946 (9th Cir. April 15, 2019): Appellants operate a gas purification plant in King County, Washington. In 2010, metal brackets securing a crucial component broke, resulting in …
Continue Reading

Rule 404(b): Use of Other Bad Acts Evidence Has Always Been Problematic (Good Quote) — Lack of Accident Evidence OK Only If State Has Reliable Assurance Accident Defense Will Be Raised (Here, Statements to Media, Police), Or Already Has Been

Fairbanks v. State, 119 N.E.3d 564 (Ind. Mar. 27, 2019): 1]In criminal cases,
Fairbanks v. State, 119 N.E.3d 564 (Ind. Mar. 27, 2019): 1]In criminal cases, Indiana Evidence Rule 404(b)’s purpose is to prevent the jury from indulging in the “forbidden inference”—that a defendant must be guilty of the charged crime…
Continue Reading

Magistrate Judge May Impose Criminal Contempt ($5,000 on Counsel) — No Need for Subject Matter Jurisdiction If Order Violated — Crim. Contempt = Separate Proceeding — Lawyer Must Assert Privilege Question by Ques. — Order = Compulsory Process

United States v. LeFande (In re LeFande), 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 8965, 2019 WL 1339452 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 26, 2019): Matthew LeFande appeals an order summar ...
United States v. LeFande (In re LeFande), 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 8965, 2019 WL 1339452 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 26, 2019): Matthew LeFande appeals an order summarily holding him in criminal contempt for refusing a magistrate judge's orders to take …
Continue Reading

Spoliation of Tangible Evidence — Bad Faith Still Required (7th Circuit) — Mistake Not Enough

Mathews v. Brown, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 10692 (7th Cir. April 11, 2019) (unpublished): Correctional officers at a Wisconsin prison placed inmate Dion Ma ...
Mathews v. Brown, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 10692 (7th Cir. April 11, 2019) (unpublished): Correctional officers at a Wisconsin prison placed inmate Dion Mathews in isolated housing for writing a "group petition," in violation of a Department of Corrections …
Continue Reading

Facebook Page/Photos Sufficiently Authenticated by Equivocal Admissions (Didn’t Know Password for “My Facebook”), Contents (Photos of Alleged Page Owner), Message from Account with Owner’s First Name, Receipt of Page Data from Facebook

      People v. Griffis, 2019 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1249 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. ...
People v. Griffis, 2019 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1249 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 21, 2019):  [*1]  APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Stephen A. Marcus, Judge. Remanded for sentencing; and judgment otherwise affirmed.  …
Continue Reading
Previous58596061626364Next

Recent Posts

Electronic Spoliation/Rule 37(e): (1) Finding of Recklessness But Neither Gross Negligence Nor Willfulness in Loss of Video Evidence Precludes Rule 37(e)(2)’s Severest Sanctions Because (i) No Intent to Deprive and (ii) Rule 37(e)(2) Displaces District Court’s Power to Invoke Inherent Power to Impose Those Sanctions — (2) Appellate Review = Abuse of Discretion, With The Caveat That Whether The District Court Applied The Correct Legal Standards Is Reviewed De Novo — (3) Inherent Power Is Often Available As An Alternate Source of Sanctioning Power But Can Be Limited by Rule or Statute, Something Which Courts Do Not Lightly Presume — (4) The Text of Rule 37(e)(2), As Confirmed by the Advisory Committee Note, Displaces Inherent Power to Impose the Sanctions Specified in the Rule or Any More Severe Sanctions — (5) “Intent to Deprive” in Rule 37(e)(2) = “The Willful Destruction Of Evidence With The Purpose Of Avoiding Its Discovery By An Adverse Party” — (6) Appellate Standing Conferred by Virtue of Issuance of Sanctions Regardless of Merits Outcome — (7) Value of Advisory Committee Notes in Interpreting Rules Enacted without Change Despite General Reticence to Rely on Legislative History

RICO: (1) Plaintiff Need Not Suffer Injury from Each Predicate Act to Establish Standing, And The Pattern May Include Predicates As to Which No Plaintiff Has Standing — (2) 7 Elements of a Civil RICO Claim (2d Circuit Articulation) Which Must Be Established As to Each Defendant — (3) Requirements of an Association-in-Fact Enterprise — (4) Each Defendant Must Personally Commit 2 or More Predicate Acts — (5) Pattern of Racketeering Activity: Horizontal and Vertical Elements — (6) No Requirement That All Members of a RICO Enterprise Joined at Inception — Can Join Over Time/Others Can Quit — (7) Cannot Charge 2 Predicate Acts Where One Action Violates Two Statutes — (8) A Footnote to Consider for Briefs: “Unless Otherwise Noted, When Quoting Judicial Decisions This Order Accepts All Alterations And Omits All Citations, Footnotes, And Internal Quotation Marks.”

For An Appeal to Be Timely, A Motion for Reconsideration in The District Court (A Rule 59(e) Motion) Must Be Filed, And Not Just Served within 30 Days of The Decision, to Toll The 30-Day Period for Filing An Appeal

There Is No Good-Faith Defense For Issuing An Overly Burdensome Subpoena

Purposes of Rule 37 and Section 1927 Sanctions

While Rule 11 Doesn’t Apply to Appellate Proceedings (Unless It Has Been Incorporated in Local Appellate Rules), Rule 11 Caselaw Is Looked to for Guidance in Interpreting Applicable Sanctions Powers on Appeal

Rule 11 Sanctions & Appellate Review: Abuse of Discretion Standard Applies Unless Sanctions Are Based Solely (Not Just in Part) on Legal Issues, in Which Case Review Is De Novo

Rule 37(b)(2)(A) Sanctions for Altering Expert’s 26(a)(2)(B) Report — Without the Expert’s Knowledge or Approval — by Converting It from PDF to Word, Changing Headings and Other Formatting, and Omitting a Page of Relevant Text and Appendices, Even Though Expert Testified That The Overall Substance of the Report Was Unchanged — Rule 37(b)(2)(A) Sanctions May Be Reversed If Failure to Comply with Discovery Order Was Due to Misunderstanding or Inability to Comply

Spoliation: Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e) Imposes a Higher Standard — Intent — Than Fourth Circuit Law Previously Applied to Spoliation of Electronically-Stored Information (And Still Does As to Non-ESI) — Willfulness vs. Intent

Inherent Power and § 1927 Sanctions: Removal of counsel from case, referral for disciplinary action, and award of fees and costs for assaulting opposing counsel at deposition — Failure to request hearing waive any right to a hearing — Notice and opportunity to be heard required before sua sponte sanctions imposed, whether under Rule 11, the inherent power of the court or § 1927 — Notice may come from court or opposing counsel — Order imposing sanctions cannot provide notice of sanctions — Nature of bad faith requirement for inherent power sanctions: bad faith to obstruct the judicial process or bring about violation of a court order — Sanctions proceeding need not defer (Younger abstention) to disciplinary proceeding involving the same conduct — Sanctions proceeding doesn’t threaten to interfere with disciplinary proceeding — Why District Court is accorded significant deference in matters concerning attorney’s fees

Archives
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

New York Office

© 2024 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice